Comparisons of systematic information generated from both sled systematic approaches and from DNA analysis at a number .Phylogenetic results from chloroplast a (= Peripe etasma) are not entirely congruent with results from morphology, but are congruent with on a duplications of isozyme-coding loci.Chloroplast is discussed with respect to morphological divergence between the two genera.Detailed chloroplast DNA restriction site mapping within the seven diploid sections of Clarkia and subsequent preliminary intersectional phylogenetic analysis are presented.These DNA-based relationships are compared with a morphological and cytological model of relationships, and to various gene duplication-based models.Section Godetia is implicated as the sister group to the rest of Clarkia, a result concordant with preliminary cladistic analysis of morphological and i isozymic e other sections of Fuchsia A restriction site Eb Gm iii a cytological, and isozymic variability are reviewed for the Onagraceae and other angiosperm Phylogenetic analysis of plants using molecular techniques is increasingly providing detailed and often unexpected evidence of phylogenetic relationships among populations, species, sections, genera, and tribes (Gottlieb, 1977a, b; Gottlieb & Weeden, 1979; Odrzykoski & Gottlieb, 1984; Sytsma & Schaal, 1985a; Sytsma & Gottlieb, 1986a, b; Jansen & Palmer, 1987, 1988; Rie-, 1988; Soltis et al., in press).A major hese new molecular techniques-e.g., chloroplast DNA (cpDNA) restriction fragment analysis-is that they provide numerous independent characters that can be used as historical markers to define more rigorously the phylogenetic relationships of the plants (see Sytsma & Gottlieb, 1986b, andJansen & Palmer, 1988, for examples).Those molecular techniques that provide but a single piece of information, such as analysis of cpDNA inversions or duplications of isozyme encoding genes, are still powerful, since the underlying genetic or structural bases can be clearly demonstrated and the essentially neutral char-
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sytsma et al. (1988) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 2 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: